2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 26, 2008, the Plaintiff established an online online shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) called Ma○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Ma○○”) in California of the United States of America, and established an online shopping mall (hereinafter “www.mass.ne”) from January 2009 to November 2009, and sold health functional foods, etc. to domestic consumers from January 2009.

(2) On January 19, 2010, the Defendant: (a) imported the shopping mall of this case from around January 7, 2009 to around November 30, 199; (b) imported the amount of KRW 481,846,400 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant transaction”); (c) prior to amendment by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 201; (d) notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of additional duties on the aggregate of KRW 30,50, KRW 96, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 40, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 509, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 509, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 405, KRW 97, and KRW 5945.

C. On April 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the notice of the payment of total of KRW 133,676,030 on the duty, etc. on January 19, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal did not decide that 90 days have elapsed from the date of receipt of the written appeal.

D. Meanwhile, on May 1, 2012 during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant confirmed that customs had already been paid or the buyer revoked the order for part of the transaction in this case, and confirmed that: (a) the customs had been revoked; (b) the amount of KRW 33,591,560 as KRW 33,39,580 (tariff 9,897,780, surtax 13,362,250, penalty tax 10,139,550); (c) the amount of KRW 58,065,200 (tariff 17,412,820, surtax 23,507,90, penalty tax 17,14,480, penalty tax 12,540, KRW 325,505,500, penalty tax (additional tax 13,500, KRW 96,139,205,200, penalty tax); and

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 11, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 21 (including serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings. 2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of each of the claims stated in the "subject to rejection" of the lawsuit in this case

First of all, the phrase "subject to rejection" in attached Form 1 "as to the amount of delinquent taxes imposed on January 19, 2010 and the amount of additional taxes of KRW 133,676,030,00, the defendant sought cancellation of the notice of notice to provide a credit information agency for delinquent tax payment and materials on arrears" in attached Form 1 2 "as to the portion of the amount of delinquent taxes imposed on the plaintiff as of March 8, 2010, the defendant sought cancellation of the notice of notice to provide the credit information agency for delinquent tax payment," the additional dues under Article 41 of the Act are naturally arising and determined by the provisions of the law without the final procedure of the tax authority, and the additional dues are automatically revoked or reduced in response to the initial cancellation or reduction, so the notice of imposition of additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013, Sept. 22, 200).

B. Next, “The part on which the Defendant sought partial revocation of the imposition of customs duties, value-added tax, and additional tax on the Plaintiff as of January 19, 2010” in attached Table 1 “Subject to rejection” refers to the part on which the Defendant revokes the imposition of tax on the said part ex officio during the instant lawsuit, and thus, there is no benefit to dispute by the Plaintiff. The part on each of the above parts of the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the instant customs disposition (A), the instant transaction constitutes “transaction in which a domestic buyer purchases and imports goods directly from a foreign seller’s cyber mall, etc.” under Article 1-3 subparag. 1 of the “Special Customs Clearance Procedure for E-Commerces, etc. (Public Notice No. 2009-19, hereinafter “Electronic Notice”), or “transaction in which a domestic buyer imports goods directly purchased from a foreign seller’s cyber mall, etc. using services of a specific e-commerce company that provide international delivery, settlement, etc.” under Article 2-2 subparag. 1 of the above Notice, and thus, the domestic buyer is the duty payer under Article 19(1) subparag. 1 of the Act as the owner of the goods imported from e-commerces under Article 19 of the Act. However, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as the import owner and disposed of the instant customs duty.

(B) If the Plaintiff is liable to pay customs duties as the owner of imported goods, the Plaintiff is a buyer under Article 30 of the Act, and thus, the customs value of the instant customs disposition ought to be determined by adding or deducting a certain amount under Article 30(1) and (2) of the Act to the amount paid or payable by the Plaintiff for the goods. However, the Defendant, not the amount paid by the Plaintiff, determined the customs value based on the settlement price of the domestic

(C) According to Article 3-4 of the Electronic Commerce Notice, where the total dutiable value among the electronic commerce products imported by domestic buyers is less than 150,000 won and falls under the “Notice on the Management of Import Customs Clearance” (Notice on Customs Clearance No. 2010-8, hereinafter “Import Customs Clearance Notice”), Article 3-1-1 and attached Table 17 of the “Public Notice on Import Clearance” (hereinafter “Attachment”), customs duties shall be exempted; however, for the goods that are imported in installments or repeatedly, customs duties shall be imposed after adding up pursuant to Article 3-1-2 of the Public Notice on Import Clearance. The Defendant, even though there is no reason to apply the provisions on the aggregate taxation, applied the provisions on the aggregate taxation instead of the Regulations on Small Tax Exemption

(D) In the instant transaction, in the event that a domestic purchaser issues two or more orders for the goods on the same day, but the goods in storage are sent out first of all due to a shortage of inventory, and then re-purchases the remaining goods, the customs office imposes customs duties on different consumers in the name of a person who made payment for the convenience of settlement, and where the customs office imposes customs duties on the goods as the domestic purchaser after deeming the goods to be an import shipper, the goods in this case include a case where the Plaintiff would be relieved of the orders before the goods were sent. However, in such a case, the customs duties are not imposed on the goods in this case, but only the total amount of KRW 223,651,90 in the instant transaction, and thus, the customs duties are imposed on the goods in excess of KRW 17,892,152 in the instant customs disposition.

(E) Article 94 Subparag. 4 of the Act provides that a small amount of goods received by a Korean resident as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance shall be exempted from taxation, and Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Rule delegated by the said Ordinance provides that the total dutiable value of the goods shall not exceed 1.50,000 won and shall be recognized as goods for self-use, without stipulating the meaning of "the relevant goods", "total dutiable value", and "self-use", but the same shall not apply to the goods which are imported in duplicate or in installments and which meet the standard prescribed by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service. The import clearance notice issued upon delegation shall be defined in the attached Table only in the meaning of "the relevant goods", "total dutiable value", and "total dutiable value". However, since the meaning of "the relevant goods" and "total dutiable value" are not clearly defined, it is unconstitutional in violation of the principle of clarity in the no taxation without law and thus, it is unlawful for the pertinent customs disposition and the pertinent customs clearance to exceed the scope of "total dutiable value".

(2) As to the disposition of the instant surtax, the Plaintiff is not a person who supplies goods and services independently for business under Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and is not a domestic entrepreneur importing goods, and thus, is not obligated to pay the value-added tax in connection with

(b) Related Acts and subordinate statutes and notices;

Attached Form 2 is as stated in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and notifications".

C. Determination

The key issue of the instant case is whether the substance of the instant transaction constitutes one of the four types defined in the notice of electronic commerce. Accordingly, the application of the small tax exemption provisions in the notice of the import of the instant goods subject to the instant transaction, the owner of the instant goods, the persons liable for payment of customs duties, the Enforcement Rule, and the notice of electronic commerce.

Therefore, I would like to first examine the substance of the instant transaction, and then examine the Plaintiff’s assertion in order.

(1) As to the substance of the instant transaction (A) can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the evidence admitted as a matter of no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 20; and (c) evidence Nos. 13, 14, and 17; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings

1) In the shopping mall of this case, the Plaintiff entered the product name, place of origin, manufacturer, brand, characteristic, feature, component, and consumer price determined by the above ○○○○○○○○, which was purchased from a wholesale wholesaler of health functional foods in Korea.

2) In the event that domestic buyers, prior to the purchase of a product, prepare an order for the purchase of the product, and make payments by transferring credit cards or cash to the bank account opened in the name of ○○○ to the bank account opened in the name of ○○○○, the local buyers borne all the import obligations and expenses required for the domestic delivery, including customs clearance, without bearing the buyer’s additional cost.

3) While entrusting the carriage of goods by paying goods and transportation charges to an international transportation company, the above ○○ was not the amount settled by domestic buyers, but the price at which the goods were purchased from the U.S. wholesalers. Accordingly, the international transportation company reported that the goods were imported by domestic buyers and delivered the goods to domestic buyers through the domestic sales company.

4) In order to publicize the shopping mall of this case, the Plaintiff: (a) registered a personal business operator with the name of ○○○ Korea in Korea; (b) advertised the shopping mall of this case in the name of ○○ Korea on the domestic portal site; (c) prepared a transaction statement as if ○○ purchases goods from ○○○○○; and (d) remitted money from the domestic account under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○ to pay the revenue to ○○○○○○○○ by withdrawing money from the domestic account under the said name.

5) At the time of the establishment of the shopping mall in the instant case, the Plaintiff stated the “Emar” column in the “Orders” column in the “Orders,” in which the number of orders is at least six, the Plaintiff stated additional names, additional contact points, and additional resident numbers.

6) If a product is lost or damaged before the orderer received the product, the orderer sent the product again or took measures to refund that product was liable in the shopping mall of this case.

7) In early 2010, the Plaintiff established ○○ Korea Co., Ltd. in the Republic of Korea and imported the same kind of functional health foods from the United States, and performed the business of returning products related to the shopping mall in the said company office.

8) The document stating that the Plaintiff’s “document book-keeping speech” submitted at the time of undergoing an investigation by the customs office on suspicion of evading customs duties, etc. in relation to the instant transaction is stating that “a large quantity of buyers shall be delivered over several occasions, and the price at a lower level to avoid the occurrence of official duties and additional duties, on account of the following: (a) no customs clearance is available at least one person per day at the time of customs clearance of Korea; (b) no customs clearance is available at the time of purchase of at least 150,000 won per day; and (c) no more than

(B) The circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., that ○○ purchased functional health foods directly from a U.S. wholesaler and have been in inventory. The price stated in the shopping mall of this case is not the price purchased from a U.S. wholesaler, but the consumer price newly determined for domestic buyers. The shopping mall of this case contains a detailed description of the function, investigation, ingredients, etc. of the product in detail and an advertisement explanation leading to the purchase. The delivery and settlement are mostly incidental. The liability of the shopping mall of this case is incurred when the issue is destroyed or lost due to the product delivery. The shopping mall of this case is established exclusively for domestic consumers, and domestic consumers are not likely to recognize the shopping mall of this case as a foreign cyber mall. The purpose of the establishment of the Plaintiff is to ensure the sales price of the product of this case by avoiding import customs law, and thus, it constitutes the sales price of the product of this case and the sales price of the product of this case to secure the competitiveness of the importer of the product of this case.

(2) As long as the commercial transaction of this case falls under imported shopping mall transactions, the Plaintiff, who operates the shopping mall of this case, is obligated to pay customs duties pursuant to Article 19(1)1 of the Act, as long as the commercial transaction of this case falls under imported shopping mall transactions. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Inasmuch as the assertion that the tax base price was wrong as seen above, it is reasonable to determine the dutiable value by adding or deducting items prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 30(1) and (2) of the Act based on the price actually paid or payable by the Plaintiff operating the shopping mall as the purchaser under Article 30 of the Act. However, in the case of this case, the Plaintiff, who is well aware of the total amount of the price paid or payable for the imported goods, does not state such fact while demanding the Defendant to present the basis for calculating the dutiable value. The burden of proof of the taxation requirement lies in the tax authority. In addition, even if the Plaintiff actively posted a false statement for the purpose of evading customs duties, the head of the customs office may not request the Plaintiff to submit the same or similar materials as the dutiable value for the reason that it is difficult to determine the dutiable value on the basis of the difference between the price of the goods of the same kind and quality or similar goods (the head of the customs office may, in light of Article 30(4) of the Act, request the Plaintiff to submit the same or similar materials as the method of determining the dutiable value.

(4) The assertion that the instant transaction is not subject to cumulative taxation, and Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Electronic Commerce Notice excludes the application of small tax exemption pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Rule with respect to the claim that the instant transaction is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, and Article 3-4(2) of the Enforcement Rule excludes the application of small tax exemption pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Rule with respect to the instant transaction, which is an imported shopping mall transaction. Thus, there is no room for application of small tax exemption provisions from the beginning

(5) On the argument that part of the transaction in this case is not subject to customs duties or the buyer has already paid customs duties, as long as the transaction in this case constitutes an imported shopping mall transaction, the transaction in this case may not affect the disposition of the customs duties in this case on the ground that the Plaintiff first sent the goods under custody due to lack of inventory of the goods and again purchased the remaining goods in the U.S., or that two domestic consumers have paid the goods under a certain person's name for the convenience of settlement when purchasing the goods. As acknowledged in paragraph (1) above, with respect to the part which is confirmed to have been withdrawn before domestic consumers had already paid customs duties or ordered orders on the Internet shopping mall, the imposition of customs duties, customs duties, and additional duties has already been revoked ex officio, and as to the remaining part, it is not subject to customs duties since customs duties have been actually paid or the order has been withdrawn, this part of the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(6) As long as the instant transaction constitutes an imported shopping mall transaction with respect to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who independently supplies goods for business under Article 2(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, is obligated to pay value-added tax on the supply of goods. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit

4. Conclusion

Among the lawsuits in this case, each claim in attached Form 1 "subject to rejection" shall be dismissed, the remainder of the claims shall be dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.